Reply
Fri 29 Apr, 2005 12:57 am
Congress Passes Budget That Cuts Medicaid
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A $2.6 trillion budget barely approved by Congress will cut projected spending on Medicaid for the poor, lock in tax cuts and ?- Republicans claim ?- put the country on a path toward lower federal deficits.
Democrats unanimously opposed the spending outline passed late Thursday. They said the budget reflects the president's misplaced priorities by freezing or trimming health, education and agriculture programs while cutting taxes by as much as $106 billion over five years.
The vote was 214-211 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.
The budget resolution is nonbinding, but it sets critical guidelines for lawmakers as they make decisions on taxes and specific spending programs for the 2006 fiscal year that begins October 1. Equally important, tax and spending legislation passed under direction from the budget is immune from Senate filibusters.
That could make it easier to open the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and facilitate GOP efforts to reduce spending increases in Medicaid and other entitlement programs. About $70 billion of the $106 billion in tax cuts would be protected by resolution, meaning it could be approved by a simple majority in the Senate rather than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.
President Bush, in a statement, said the budget plan "protects America, helps economic growth, funds our priorities and keeps us on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009."
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said it was a first step toward confronting the "massive problem" of meeting the nation's defense and domestic spending needs while coping with relentlessly rising baby boomer health and retirement costs. "The president sent us a budget which for the first time in seven years stepped on the sacred ground of trying to address the entitlement costs of the federal budget," he said.
It was the effort to control spending on the Medicaid health program for the poor ?- one of the three big entitlement programs, along with Medicare and
Social Security ?- that created the biggest obstacle to agreement on the budget. Medicaid was last cut in 1997.
Democrats and some Republicans, led by Sen. Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, objected that cuts in projected spending for Medicaid would impose a hardship on states that rely heavily on federal grants to care for the poor.
The final agreement accepted by Smith would shave automatically increasing benefit programs by $35 billion over five years, with Medicaid singled out for a $10 billion reduction in the four-year period beginning in 2007. That would give a new commission and the nation's governors time to recommend cost savings.
The budget resolution also directs lawmakers to cull about $3 billion from agriculture programs and as much as $6.6 billion from federal pension programs, in part through higher fees paid by employers.
"It has been a difficult process," Smith said.
Gregg pointed out that the savings accounted for only about 1 percent of Medicaid's projected spending of more than 1.1 trillion over the next five years. "You would think we were scorching the earth when we originally proposed it," he said.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said it's time to look closely at benefit programs that are "popular but rife with waste."
But Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said her state alone would lose $1.37 billion in Medicaid funding. "It is unconscionable to balance the budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Americans."
Republicans said the budget would put the government on a course of cutting the yearly deficit in half, from $521 billion in fiscal 2004 to $254 billion in fiscal 2008.
But Democrats argued that the national debt, the total amount owed by the federal government, would continue to rise. "I believe it is a profound mistake for this country to stack additional debt upon already record levels of debt that I believe puts the long-term economic security of our country at risk," said Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota, top Democrat on the Budget Committee.
The budget lays out plans and priorities for spending $2.6 trillion in fiscal 2006, projecting a federal deficit of $383 billion. The spending includes $1.6 trillion in entitlement programs, $439 million for defense and $404 million for non-defense programs. The $843 million in so-called discretionary spending was up 2 percent from the current fiscal year, in line with Bush's recommendations.
The agreement drops several billion dollars that the Senate voted to add to education spending and assumes $50 billion in extra spending next year for military operations in
Iraq and
Afghanistan.
___
Those bastards (the Repugnants) have no shame.....
The dems say they want a balanced budget,and spending cuts.
But,they arent willing to make the decisions to do that.
Their only answer is to raise taxes.
Sorry,but spending must be cut in ALL areas,not just the areas the dems want.
Quote:The spending includes $1.6 trillion in entitlement programs, $439 million for defense and $404 million for non-defense programs. The $843 million in so-called discretionary spending was up 2 percent from the current fiscal year, in line with Bush's recommendations.
Some would say that 1.6 trillion in entitlement programs is HUGE. Look at it compared to the other categories. But, am I correct that the 1.6 trillion includes SS?
mysteryman wrote:The dems say they want a balanced budget,and spending cuts.
But,they arent willing to make the decisions to do that.
Their only answer is to raise taxes.
Sorry,but spending must be cut in ALL areas,not just the areas the dems want.
Except the miltary and weapons development, right?
My 22 year old handicapped son can't be on my health insurance. That's the law. He can't work. He can't buy his own. If they cut his medicaid benefits his anti convulsant medication floats at 1000.00 a month. Without it he will probably have a few hundred seizures a day and will die in a month. If he can no longer get his needed medication as a result of these cutbacks Bush and his boys in Congress and the lobbyists and corporations they serve can go to Hell as far as I'm concerned.
Some people are directly effected by these kinds of things and are real, not just concepts on a forum
for discussion.
I'm with you. I'd like to see a committee to see how many deaths will be attributed to the decrease in medicaid. These are people who are defenseless for the most part. How heartless is their country for turning their backs on them? So many of these people have to make a choice as to whether they eat or buy medication. Some choice.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:My 22 year old handicapped son can't be on my health insurance. That's the law.
How do they get away with this? What does the law say?
jpinMilwaukee wrote:blueveinedthrobber wrote:My 22 year old handicapped son can't be on my health insurance. That's the law.
How do they get away with this? What does the law say?
They age off. That's that.
So just because he is 22 he's SOL? That is BS.
We must protect the tax cuts for the wealthy at all costs. The hell with the sick and defenseless rule the congressional Nazi's.
jpinMilwaukee wrote:So just because he is 22 he's SOL? That is BS.
Oh he can buy insurance...that's the law also...but it's called State Mandated insurance and the premiums are astronomical..certainly more than his monthly check.
They also lopped 200.00 dollars a month off his check because he lives at home. If he could work part time to supplement his income, they would take dollar for dollar that money off his check as well. Great incentive. When he first went on SSI and medicaid my plan was to have him save 50.00 a month and I figured by the time he reached retirement age he wouldn't have to be on the dole and could possibly have a little quality to his life. I was informed that the minute he holds 2000.00 in assets of any kind he's off the program. Wow!!! That would buy his medicine for two whole months at todays prices. We had to liquidate his savings so he could qualify foe the program. Yes, they even penalize for the money that was saved for him before he turned 19.
Of course, I'm sure that the ultra conservatives consider my boy and those like him an egg that must be broken to make the omelette and keep the defense machine going, and that I'm a bum because I won't be able to care for him after I'm gone, ignoring the fact that it's the government program itself that has removed that possibility. You'll understand that I have a slightly different view.
Bush and his cohorts claim to be evangelical Christians or at the very least Christians. Yet they certainly do not follow the teachings of Christ except of course when it suits their purpose.
I hope in this instance there is a hell for they surely will burn it for their misdeeds.
We will end up paying more.
People who don't get the health care they need go to the emergency room.
The emergency room can't turn them away.
The $1000 per month meds that BPB's kid, and many others like him, need to stay healthy will turn into $3000 a day hospital stays.
You end up paying for it with higher insurance premiums and if not higher taxes, less services.
Maybe they crowd more kids into the classrooms.
Maybe they don't fix that bridge after all.
Maybe we layoff some cops and fire-fighters.
BVT, I hope it wasn't inappropriate of me to mention your son in my post. I'm sorry if it was.
He is a really good example of the type of person who is hurt by these insane cuts.
Best to you and to him.
Quote:The dems say they want a balanced budget,and spending cuts.
But,they arent willing to make the decisions to do that.
Their only answer is to raise taxes.
Sorry,but spending must be cut in ALL areas,not just the areas the dems want.
How about war spending? Perhaps we should cut back on the aggression somewhat.
And, we would be satisfied with not RAISING taxes, but not CUTTING them either - your leader Bush is the first one to cut taxes severely during wartime, and it has had terrible consequences on the economy...
Huge tax cuts for the rich in the last 5 years. Huge.
How can this be justified?
Cycloptichorn
It just wears me out to hear people complain about taxes.
Especially when they're the people screaming and yelling about "protecting our most vulnerable" citizens.
The military wonders why they are having such a hard time recruiting. Perhaps they should pick up a newpaper and read about the cuts in veteran's benefits.
Why put your life on the line for your country when they obviously don't give a shi+ what happens to you?
Army Running Out of Money Says Rumsfeld
LAST UPDATE: 4/27/2005 7:00:09 PM
The Army is close to running out of money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld informed Congress Wednesday the Army's operating fund will be exhausted early next month, and the Army is already slowing its spending. The war in Iraq costs more than $1 billion a week, and most of the cost is incurred by the Army. The Afghan operation costs about $250 million a week.
Although the House and Senate have approved a $82 billion supplemental appropriation for this year's military operations, the separate bills have not yet been combined and approved by both houses.
Rumsfeld told congressional leaders in a letter the Pentagon may have to invoke the Feed and Forage Act to continue spending, a law that allows the Defense Department to run up debt when it has run out of money.
The Iraq and Afghan wars have, so far, cost more than $200 billion.
Source
What the hell?
That is some weird and scary news, Squinney.
Perhaps it's time for Bush to suggest another round of showing our credit-card patriotism by hitting the Gap.
Now that the bankruptcy laws have changed the only thing we've got to lose by being super patriots is..... well..... everything, I guess.
But that money will trickle back down from the department store to me, won't it?